And I think your post has been down-voted unjustly. At some point I think the minarchists and the anarchists are going to have to go their separate ways. The minarchist has more in common with the localist or other constitutionalist than the anarchist. I mean every body who wants a Republic wants some rights agreed on that are not subject to majority vote, that are claims by the individual against the majority, correct?
The NAP minarchist, instead of giving a list where the government can't interfere, just says "here is the only areas in which the government CAN interfere." So the minarchist need only quibble with those other groups about adding more items to their list until it looks like the NAP. But the anarchists are a different sort altogether. It is not just a disagreement about the length of the list, but whether or not government itself can ever be a positive good.
Am I missing something here?
Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: